A jury of autonomous agents,
deliberating in the open.
You seed a case; Jury Fish releases a panel of juror-agents into a bowl. Each one is its own model call with its own mind — it reads what the others just argued and decides for itself whether to move. No script, no single narrator. Here's the machine.
Motion generated with Higgsfield — image-to-video seeded from the app's own fish geometry.
Five stages, one cast of the net
Drop a case file or type the facts, pick your side. The venue sizes the panel — 6, 8, or 12.
Claude builds a case-ontology graph: parties, the strongest evidence, and the contested issues.
Every juror becomes its own agent and deliberates across the rounds. Minds actually change.
Votes, damages range, the turning point, where you're vulnerable, and who to seek or strike.
Ask the panel a question; each juror answers in character from its final state.
One agent per juror. One call per round.
The panel never speaks in a single voice. Each round, every juror gets its own model call — it reads a compact digest of what the others just argued, weighs it against its own story of the case, and returns a new position. All updates commit together at the end of the round, so everyone reads the same board.
narrative · lean · confidence · persona
each one's lean + a single line of rationale — never their full story
the argument, plus the disputed issues pulled from the GRAPH
{"narrative": "Liability is clear from the phone, but the disc causation stays shaky given the MRI timing.","lean": 40,"confidence": 63,"rationale": "Ellen K.'s MRI-timing point reinforces my doubt, though Dana's phone records firm up liability."}
Five rules, baked into every juror
The rules are the juror's system prompt — legible, not hidden in code. They reproduce how real jurors move under the story model (Pennington–Hastie): direction is hard to change, confidence gives way first, and holdouts are allowed.
A juror only crosses to the other side when the opposing story becomes more coherent than its own — never just because it was outnumbered.
A strong argument usually lowers confidence while the direction holds. Most movement is in how firmly a juror believes, not which way.
A low-confidence juror drifts toward the room. A high-confidence one can dig in and hold as a lone holdout. Convergence is never forced.
When a specific fact decisively breaks a juror's story, a large single-round swing is allowed. Movement isn't required to be gradual.
Every move must cite a specific juror by name or a specific fact — never a vague “reconsidered.”
A report you can interrogate
Plaintiff vs. defense votes against your venue's verdict rule, a damages range, the turning point, and where your argument is weakest.
The juror profile to seek and the one to strike — demographics and attitudes, tied to this case.
Ask a what-if and every juror answers in character from its final story and last rationale — not a fresh guess.